An E-democracy comment on STV

 

DHB Voting via STV is mischaracterized if as you say it is believed that ALL candidates have to be ranked. The instructions are clear "as many as you wish". In a large voter pool (turnout) ordering more than the number of seats is unlikely to affect the overall outcome but in a low turnout, it becomes increasingly important but it still reflects very accurately, the sentiment of voters. It is, in my honest opinion much better to use STV on a board where ALL the candidates are elected by STV than is the case of the DHB where some are appointed. Further, STV voids any need on a multi-member board to have a by election should a member retire, decease, or abscond or be convicted (just kidding). 

The recent media observations that STV is the cause of the low turnout I suggest that this is not the case, it is a scapegoat and reporting surrounding this needs to be more balanced than 'just another negative opinion'. The cause of the low turn out IMHO is the media. People get turned off by tabloid 'style' reporting let alone pandering to the "did too, did not" pedantery we have seen this time.

Despite it being mention nearly everywhere I spoke, and STV appearing as the question still unanswered by 2021 in the mayoral debate media just haven't gone there.

Local bodies act requires FTP/STV 'review' as an option for 2010 in 2008. It is my contention that anyone elected under FTP is unlikely to 'show' support for STV for obvious reasons.

As i said to the select committee... it would be much more engaging of the public sentiment and thus participatory if it was aware that it could vote for who they didn't want (by lower ranking) and further, trust the vote count for reflecting 'where the true sentiment' lies.

As for the Mayoral vote under STV, as I have said to many, you GET A MAYOR with more than 50% of the voters polled behind him/her. This will be crucial to dealing with the complex issues as we move beyond Kyoto.
(did a mayoral candidate exhibit ANY competence in this area. Indeed did media even notice that climate change is unfolding around our ears? ie: Treasury;ETS etc. No other Mayoral candidates even bothered.)

Besides... it sends a good signal to all and sundry.. if say lots voted for Bob #1, and lots voted for Megan #1 but even more (than both) voted for Blair @ #2. That could mean the city wanted me for Mayor because It BEST represented all views at the table....

Now that is a head turner.... and demonstrates how STV dilutes POLARITY and delivers CONSENSUS POLITICS to a community. 

Where would you read that in a newspaper. It is counter intuitive to media to have consensus on anything. What would they have to report? That the council 'agreed' to listen? That the council made an 'well informed decision', that the Mayor never had to make a casting vote? And... best one of all.  That councilors actually liked working productively in a contestable environment where issues were robustly explored and petty point scoring was passe.

Don't laugh... That's how the Nordic countries made it through the angst and divisions and have become the progressive havens of participatory civics we see today.

Good luck to ALL the candidates reading this. Some of you have impressed me with your efforts and I have voted carefully rewarding those who were both innovative and presented their case well. I don't think 'history and experience' is as important as having 'something upstairs'.

(BTW: ya got my vote Sue! you've got a bit of both!).

"Mayor Blair" Anderson.

--
'Mayor Blair' Anderson  ‹(•¿•)›

http://blairformayor.blogspot.com
http://blair4mayor.com

ph (643) 389 4065   cell 027 265 7219